« December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 »
Branding is demonstrating, advertising is explaining. What you fail to demonstrate, you are left to explain.
The most effective brands demonstrate their value, knowledge and understanding of consumer wants and needs rather than explaining themselves.
Brand strategy demonstrates consumer relevancy in contrast to, for example, adulatory advertising explanations.
Branding engages your customer to lean forward and pursue you. Advertising pleads with and chases after customers.
Branding is a seduction. Advertising is a television spot bleating Get More.
Creation of a brand to which your audience is drawn rather than chased is of material dollar impact to any organization.
Brand strategy decreases and eliminates advertising expense. Advertising strategy institutionalizes long-term advertising spends into the P&L.
It bears repeating:
Branding is demonstrating, advertising is explaining. What you fail to demonstrate, you are left to explain.
Branding engages your customer to lean forward and pursue you. Advertising pleads with and chases after customers.
Branding is a seduction. Advertising is stalking.
Advertising is a shout. Branding is a whisper.
Brand strategy works even when the brand is not advertising.
Branding. Smarter than Advertising.
An advertising campaign to bring confidence back to Germany has flopped, and become the topic of the moment on the Internet.
German advertising agency, Jung von Matt, developed the Du bist Deutschland campaign introduced in September 2005.
According to the online version of Der Spiegel:
The idea seemed like a good one: an ad campaign to buck up the German spirit and remind the depressive citizens of Europe’s largest (but struggling) economy that things really aren’t all that bad. Ad agencies, newspapers and a number of celebrities donated some €30 million-worth of advertising space to the nonprofit Du Bist Deutschland campaign launched last September. Ads appeared on billboards and television, in German magazines and movie theaters, and they featured pictures of the German great and good. Beethoven and Einstein made appearances as did the boxer Max Schmeling and figure skater Katarina Witt — not to mention a luminous photo of a delicate human fetus developing in the womb.
“Du bist Deutschland” was the motto on every picture. “You are Germany.” You are talented, beautiful, intelligent, strong.
The aim of the campaign? “To fight grumpiness,” wrote Jean-Remy von Matt in an internal e-mail to his employees last October. Von Matt, 53, is the Belgian head of Jung von Matt, the prominent German ad firm that spearheaded the campaign. The e-mail was written after the “Du Bist Deutschland” campaign debuted to nationwide disdain.
So what went wrong?
For starters, in addition to projecting nothingness the campaign’s logo too closely resembles that of the 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games.
Of more importance, the campaign was doomed before it began, as it relied solely upon adulatory and inauthentic messaging, a toxic combination. Again, from Der Spiegel:
The ads have spawned so much criticism and satire that a Google search doesn’t even bring up the campaign’s Web site on its first page. People complain in English, German and Dutch — one rabbi in the United States criticizes the inclusion of Einstein. “Portraying Einstein as a paragon of German national culture should offend all people,” wrote Rabbi Brad Hirschfeld in the Jewish magazine Forward. “Were it not for the safe haven that Einstein found in the United States, he, like most of Europe’s Jews, would likely have been murdered in the German-led Holocaust.”
The ad agency also committed a classic error, creating an advertising campaign without a brand strategy. This from the Jung von Matt website, pointing to an advertising trainwreck waiting to happen:
Good advertising has an attractive exterior and is appealing. But at its core it is aggressive and consistently pursues a particular goal. Good advertising must be more than just nice and snappy. Good advertising is desire and deception.
Aggressive? Pursues? Deception?
Not only does this ad agency fail to understand the difference between branding vs. advertising, it also grossly distorts what good advertising should be. How often have we seen this; high-production-value creative peddled without a brand strategy? Then months later, the decision-makers behind the campaign wonder why the “sales” needle has not moved.
Branding engages your customer to lean forward and pursue you. Advertising pleads with and chases after consumers.
Branding is a seduction. Advertising is a television ad bleating “Du bist.”
According to AsiaTravelTips, South Australia is introducing its new brand. Let’s listen in:
South Australia’s image is getting a revamp with today’s unveiling of its new brand – South Australia. A brilliant blend.
For the first time, the brand will be adopted by all Government agencies that market South Australia to consumers, in sectors such as tourism, education, business, arts and migration.
Tourism Minister Jane Lomax-Smith said that South Australia is leading the nation as the only State that will have one overarching consumer brand to market SA locally, interstate and overseas.
“South Australia. A brilliant blend. builds on the State’s main strength – its wine reputation – without limiting its focus to wine. It reflects our diversity in a modern, creative and inspiring way.
“It also supports the growing confidence of South Australians in the future of their State, and is a brand that all South Australians can be proud of and get behind.”
South Australia. A brilliant blend. will promote the State as an unspoilt and unconventional destination.
“We want to appeal to travellers who enjoy outstanding wine and food, festivals and events, culture and history, unique nature, coastal, marine and Outback experiences and great lifestyle.”
The new brand is further explained at the website of the South Australia Tourism Commission.
However, rather than listen to us rant about how the agency that sold this advertising strategy to the good folks at SATC failed to mention the shortcomings of, for example, adulatory messaging, tell us what you think.
As discussed here weeks ago, they’ve done it. Intel is changing its brand. But the question is, why?
Intel is shifting its brand promise from that of a narrowly focused silicon chip producer for PCs, to one of providing turn-key packages of chips and software to manufacturers of everything from laptops and entertainment PCs to cell phones and hospital gear.
It’s the Samsung strategy.
Brand Identity & Key Messaging
This shift in brand promise, and thus the overall business strategy of the company, leads to a misguided retolling of the visual identity and key message of the brand. This retooling, rather than elevating the market conversation about Intel, we predict will add little to the new business strategy. The reason is that these changes homogenize the brand, rather than differentiate it. For example, the new Intel visual identity now borrows elements from none other than Samsung.
According to at least one analyst quoted in Bloomberg, Intel’s move leaves some scratching their heads:
“Intel has been struggling to find a way out of PCs for the last six or seven years,'’ said Eric Ross, an analyst at ThinkEquity Partners in New York, who rates the stock “buy'’ and doesn’t own it. “I never dreamed they’d drop Intel Inside. Their marketing has been exceptionally successful.”
Convergance vs. Platform
The brand shift is driven by a number of factors, according to Business Week:
Intel thrived by concentrating on the microprocessors that power personal computers. By narrowing the company’s focus, the[y]…buried the competition. They invested billions in hyperproductive plants that could crank out more processors in a day than some rivals did in a year. Meanwhile, they helped give life to the Information Age, with ever-faster, more powerful chips.
[Intel CEO Paul] Otellini is tossing out the old model. Instead of remaining focused on PCs, he’s pushing Intel to play a key technological role in a half-dozen fields, including consumer electronics, wireless communications, and health care. And rather than just microprocessors, he wants Intel to create all kinds of chips, as well as software, and then meld them together into what he calls “platforms.” The idea is to power innovation from the living room to the emergency room. “This is the right thing for our company, and to some extent the industry,” he says. “All of us want [technology] to be more powerful and to be simpler, to do stuff for us without us having to think about it.”
So, what is the Samsung strategy? The answer from Samsung:
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a global leader in semiconductor, telecommunication, digital media and digital convergence technologies… [T]he company consists of five main business units: Digital Appliance Business, Digital Media Business, LCD Business, Semiconductor Business and Telecommunication Network Business.
The convergence strategy of Samsung by another name is the new platform strategy of Intel. Which prompts this question: Why does a $40 billion company adding $1 billion of operating income each month decide to adopt the strategy of a competitor? From The Wall Street Journal:
The changes are the result of a broad effort spearheaded by Senior Vice President Eric B. Kim, who was recruited just more than a year ago from Samsung Electronics Co. At Samsung, Mr. Kim helped the big electronics company shift its image from high-volume manufacturing to innovative consumer products.
At Intel, the situation is much different, Mr. Kim says. Partly because of the success of the 14-year-old Intel Inside program, the company already is ranked No. 5 among the most valuable global brands…
But the company was firmly linked in consumers’ minds with PCs, at a time when Intel wants to play a bigger role in areas such as consumer electronics and cellphones. Intel concluded that the idea it wanted to project was its role in bringing forth technology advances that help change consumers’ definition for what is normal.
“Everything we do is a leap ahead,” Mr. Kim said. “It becomes so ingrained in the fabric of people’s lives that they can’t go back anymore.”
Emotion vs. Function
As Mr. Kim explains further in this Intel press release:
“This evolution will allow Intel to be better recognized for our contributions, establish a stronger emotional connection with our audiences, and strengthen our overall position in the marketplace.”
We disagree.
Intel has adopted an adulatory advertising campaign masquerading as a brand strategy. This rebrand touts a functional benefit rather than an emotional one.
Little is known of the research upon which Mr. Kim bases his conclusions. Thus far Intel has unveiled precious little demonstrating the emotional connection they seek with the market. Most egregiously, Intel has too easily discarded highly valuable assets, reminiscent of another iconic brand’s attempt to retool a real thing.
All the best names and taglines are provocations: Virgin, Yahoo, Caterpillar, Fannie Mae, GAP, Banana Republic, Crossfire. To qualify as a provocation, a name or tagline must contain what most would call “negative messages” for the goods and services the name is to represent. Get the full scoop on the power of negativity in company names from Igor’s Theory of Negativity.
The more a brand relies upon an adulatory message – We Are Better, We Offer More, We Cost Less, We Make A Difference – the higher the advertising expense.
Adulatory claims are an advertising strategy.
Anyone can make an adulatory claim. And, anyone can top the last one.
Adulatory claims require a constant and expensive media presence. Which may be okay if an organization has the annual advertising budget of a Fortune 500.
Adulatory claims, and cousin the cheerleader message, gain credibility among those on the inside responsible for the brand – executives, members of the Board, administration, brand managers, other organizational leaders. They feel great about cheerleader messaging in their advertising because the message is so darn POSITIVE. But each of these insiders is already convinced - they are paid to pay attention - while the consumer they wish to influence is not. Instead, the consumer has to pay, literally, when they pay attention – they pay with their time and mental effort, neither of which consumers are likely to invest when a brand shouts in self flattery.
Cheerleader advertising claims have equal application to ANY brand – Get More from T-Mobile, the Leap Ahead campaign of Intel, or any late night TV advertising for a car dealership – which is why they are so numbingly unmemorable, and irrelevant.
For your enjoyment, the highly undifferentiated - other than by name - logos of select Mediterranean tourist destinations, illustrating how one key to powerful branding is in finding the visual road less traveled:
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
The Malta Tourism Authority, or MTA, has for months engaged in a branding effort. According to The Times of Malta:
Diversity, heritage, and hospitality have been chosen as core values that will make up the Malta brand for tourism purposes under the vision Enriching Your Life.
What is being passed off as a brand for Malta tourism is instead an advertising campaign, forcing Malta to explain itself rather than demonstrate their key difference. Which is fine if the MTA has an annual advertising budget of a Fortune 500. But the reality is this: Solutions presented as a brand outside of a competitive context set up a country for large year-over-year advertising spends with little hope of success.
The reason? Diversity, heritage and hospitality are core values that apply equally to any number of destination tourism brands, such as Croatia, or Cyprus, or Catalina. A brand vision such as Enriching Your Life is meaningless white noise; inane cheerleader pap that sounds good to Malta insiders, but is irrelevant to the external audiences Malta seeks to influence.
What is it about Malta that separates the Malta experience from other tourism alternatives? How does Malta fulfill a passion not satisfied elsewhere? The MTA project thus far fails to provide answers. But, these are the exact questions a good brand strategy should answer.
Branding is smarter than advertising. Understanding the difference is crucial to any tourism destination attempting to drive tourist visits on a 6.2 million Maltese Lira advertising budget. For example, effective brand strategy substantially decreases advertising expense. Just ask Alaska.
Tourism branding is competitive sport. Malta should rethink its approach to get in the game.
« December 2005 | Home | February 2006 »
Monday, January 30th, 2006 - 10:42pm |
Branding Resources + Branding v Advertising + Laws Of Branding |
Comments (3)